free-range politics, organic community

Dems and Repubs agree: Tulsi must be destroyed

Earlier this week, Tulsi came out strongly against war with Iran.
Within days the political establishment was smearing her again.

Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard’s campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination is being underwritten by some of the nation’s leading Russophiles.

Donors to her campaign in the first quarter of the year included: Stephen F. Cohen, a Russian studies professor at New York University and prominent Kremlin sympathizer; Sharon Tennison, a vocal Putin supporter who nonetheless found herself detained by Russian authorities in 2016; and an employee of the Kremlin-backed broadcaster RT, who appears to have donated under the alias “Goofy Grapes.”

Yes, out of the 65,000+ of Tulsi's donors, three of them may have had Russian sympathies.
It's a "scandal" according to the centrist establishment Daily Beast.

That reflects the attitude of a small set of the American left wing, a non-interventionist faction that eyed collusion allegations with suspicion.
But the list of controversial donors to Gabbard, as detailed by her filings with the Federal Election Committee, doesn’t end there.
Susan Sarandon, the famous actress who earned the enduring wrath of Democrats for her support of Green Party candidate Jill Stein in the 2016 election, gave Gabbard $500.

Not Susan Sarandon!! Anything but Susan Sarandon! LOL
Normally this would be just another empty smear by the Democratic establishment.
However, this time the RNC picked it up.

An odd turn of affairs: The RNC touted a Daily Beast story that reported “Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard’s campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination is being underwritten by some of the nation’s leading Russophiles.” Not donations from Russians, mind you, but a couple thousand dollars in donations from Americans with publicly stated views that are more or less in line with those of Vladmir Putin’s regime.

Whether or not Gabbard considers herself a friend to Russia, Russian-backed media sees a potential friend in her. Earlier this year, NBC News found “at least 20 Gabbard stories on three major Moscow-based English-language websites affiliated with or supportive of the Russian government: RT, the Russian-owned TV outlet; Sputnik News, a radio outlet; and Russia Insider, a blog that experts say closely follows the Kremlin line.”

Rarely do you see the establishment Dems and establishment Repubs united like this.
In fact, I can't recall ever seeing them united to this degree.
It reminds me of how competing houses of the aristocracy would suddenly throw aside their bitter hatred of each other when threatened by a peasant revolt.

Gabbard’s overall record isn’t consistently pro-Russian; she’s voted for sanctions and condemned the violation of Ukrainian sovereignty...Where Russia has friends, Tulsi Gabbard is usually standing up for them, beyond Assad. She strongly objected to the arrest of Julian Assange. She accused “neocons, neolibs and the MSM” of pushing for war in Venezuela, where Russia is backing the Maduro regime, and scoffed “no wonder North Korea won’t give up their nukes.” She contended, “TV talking heads love trying to goad Trump into going to war w/ Russia.” In 2015, she defended Russia’s military operations in Syria: “Bad enough US has not been bombing al-Qaeda/al-Nusra in Syria. But it’s mind-boggling that we protest Russia’s bombing of these terrorists.”

I'm guessing that this list of Gabbard being on the right side of these issues is supposed to be a damning indictment of her. It's truly Orwellian.
In case there was any question, when Tulsi pushed back against this naked smear this is how it was spun: Gabbard = Trump, because they are both Putin Puppets, I guess.

Comments

The US is preparing to impose sanctions on Russia’s controversial Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline to Germany, the Trump administration’s energy secretary has warned, targeting a project that critics say can be used by the Kremlin as a political weapon.

“The opposition to Nord Stream 2 is still very much alive and well in the United States,” Rick Perry told reporters at a briefing in Kiev during a trip to attend the inauguration of Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s new president.

“The United States Senate is going to pass a bill, the House is going to approve it, and it is going to go to the president and he is going to sign it, that is going to put sanctions on Nord Stream 2,” he said, in comments published by Reuters.

Opponents of the €9.5bn scheme, which is under construction and will run from Russia to Germany under the Baltic Sea, fear Moscow will use it to increase its control over European energy supplies.

In particular, they claim it has been designed to hurt Ukraine by reducing the amount of gas shipped through the country.

Because the U.S. should have the final say of how Russia exports its gas. I guess.
The pipeline is over half finished.

@gjohnsit
At the end of World War II the US promoted conversion from coal to oil in Europe, and one of the stated purposes was to use dependency on US oil as political leverage. The US at the time was one of the world's largest exporter of oil. However, Russia does not follow that path, believing that to be effective as a supplier you have to separate business from politics. Russia is the most reliable supplier of Natural Gas to Europe. Even during the hostilities with Georgia, Russia never threatened to cut off their gas. Ukraine is massively Russophobic, even xenophobic, yet Russia provides a huge portion of Ukraine's energy, despite the fact that Ukraine refuses to pay from time to time.

Nord Stream II is critical to Germany's economic health. Although Germany sides with the US and the UK on many issues regarding Russia, there exists a very close business relationship between Russia and Germany. I would expect that to grow substantially especially because the trade relationship between Russia and China is growing by leaps and bounds, over $100 billion last year. I would think that Germany would want to see some of that. Currently yearly turnover between Germany and Russia is about $50 billion, and grew 24% year to year.

The US is preparing to impose sanctions on Russia’s controversial Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline to Germany, the Trump administration’s energy secretary has warned, targeting a project that critics say can be used by the Kremlin as a political weapon.

“The opposition to Nord Stream 2 is still very much alive and well in the United States,” Rick Perry told reporters at a briefing in Kiev during a trip to attend the inauguration of Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s new president.

“The United States Senate is going to pass a bill, the House is going to approve it, and it is going to go to the president and he is going to sign it, that is going to put sanctions on Nord Stream 2,” he said, in comments published by Reuters.

Opponents of the €9.5bn scheme, which is under construction and will run from Russia to Germany under the Baltic Sea, fear Moscow will use it to increase its control over European energy supplies.

In particular, they claim it has been designed to hurt Ukraine by reducing the amount of gas shipped through the country.

Because the U.S. should have the final say of how Russia exports its gas. I guess.
The pipeline is over half finished.

Mind you, these sanctions will be aimed at our European allies.

up

20 users have voted.

—

Capitalism has always been the rule of the people by the oligarchs. You only have two choices, eliminate them or restrict their power.

The US is preparing to impose sanctions on Russia’s controversial Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline to Germany, the Trump administration’s energy secretary has warned, targeting a project that critics say can be used by the Kremlin as a political weapon.

“The opposition to Nord Stream 2 is still very much alive and well in the United States,” Rick Perry told reporters at a briefing in Kiev during a trip to attend the inauguration of Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s new president.

“The United States Senate is going to pass a bill, the House is going to approve it, and it is going to go to the president and he is going to sign it, that is going to put sanctions on Nord Stream 2,” he said, in comments published by Reuters.

Opponents of the €9.5bn scheme, which is under construction and will run from Russia to Germany under the Baltic Sea, fear Moscow will use it to increase its control over European energy supplies.

In particular, they claim it has been designed to hurt Ukraine by reducing the amount of gas shipped through the country.

Because the U.S. should have the final say of how Russia exports its gas. I guess.
The pipeline is over half finished.

@gjohnsit
democratic party was in 2003. i joined, for the first and only time, so that i could attend the state convention. and i came away thinking exactly this: Those people seem exactly like the popular kids in high school. They haven't become 10 cents more sophisticated in the 30 years since they collected their diplomas.

I also saw first hand the extraordinary energy and excitement of Barbara Lawton's army of young, female supporters -- the kids who would have backed her to a resounding victory over Scott Walker, had her candidacy not been explicitly undermined by the "kewl kids". One of the saddest moments in the history of the state of Wisconsin. Such an opportunity squandered. It will take this state decades to recover, if such a thing can ever really be thought to happen -- I mean the ruined lives will have been ruined, and that's that.

Although her campaign has added a few staffers, it is "largely operating outside typical Democratic and progressive circles," according to Politico.

"I have no contact with her or her campaign. I don’t even know anyone that’s working with her or her campaign," said Jane Kleeb, chair of the Nebraska Democratic Party.

"I think for a while she was a darling of the progressive movement," Kleeb added. "And then anybody I know, any leader I know, just thinks she’s weird."

That sound exactly like what the "cool kids" would say in middle school.

up

5 users have voted.

—

The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.

The US is preparing to impose sanctions on Russia’s controversial Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline to Germany, the Trump administration’s energy secretary has warned, targeting a project that critics say can be used by the Kremlin as a political weapon.

“The opposition to Nord Stream 2 is still very much alive and well in the United States,” Rick Perry told reporters at a briefing in Kiev during a trip to attend the inauguration of Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s new president.

“The United States Senate is going to pass a bill, the House is going to approve it, and it is going to go to the president and he is going to sign it, that is going to put sanctions on Nord Stream 2,” he said, in comments published by Reuters.

Opponents of the €9.5bn scheme, which is under construction and will run from Russia to Germany under the Baltic Sea, fear Moscow will use it to increase its control over European energy supplies.

In particular, they claim it has been designed to hurt Ukraine by reducing the amount of gas shipped through the country.

Because the U.S. should have the final say of how Russia exports its gas. I guess.
The pipeline is over half finished.

Mind you, these sanctions will be aimed at our European allies.

up

2 users have voted.

—

We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg

@Raggedy Ann
we can almost guarantee that the empire will fall one way or another. I just hope that the war does not come to US soil, but the odds are greatly increasing with each foray into regime change wars. No matter how the empire falls, it will be ugly and painful, but it may be better for all of humanity in the long run. Hence my first sig line by Dr. Cornel West.

Spell it with me: S A N C T I O N S!
What does that spell?
SANCTIONS!
What?!?
SANCTIONS!
One more time!
SANCTIONS!

The sooner the empire falls the better. Then again - I better be careful what I wish for.

up

16 users have voted.

—

"I don't want to run the empire, I want to bring it down!" ~Dr. Cornel West

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." John F Kennedy

@gulfgal98
but the American people are sleeping! Still! The Iranians are preparing. Their population will be in full force against us while we are going to the movies and shopping.

#2 we can almost guarantee that the empire will fall one way or another. I just hope that the war does not come to US soil, but the odds are greatly increasing with each foray into regime change wars. No matter how the empire falls, it will be ugly and painful, but it may be better for all of humanity in the long run. Hence my first sig line by Dr. Cornel West.

up

4 users have voted.

—

“It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong.”

@Not Henry Kissinger@Not Henry Kissinger
I agree, based only upon my own anecdotal experience in a small southern town Peace vigil. What I found was that people are making the connection between endless war and why things are going downhill here in the US. This cut across all sectors of the political spectrum.

Further, what Tulsi has been doing is what we tried to do. And that is selling the anti regime change war platform based upon how negative war has been here at home economically.

What the Peace platform does is expose nearly everyone in Congress as a hypocrite. This is why she is the enemy of both Democrats and Republicans. Most, regardless of their political party, belong to the war party above all.

@gulfgal98@gulfgal98
Tulsi is not a peacenik, gulfgal. She's a major in the Army National Guard and does not oppose "war" in the abstract, but rather regime-change war, much as Trump used to say he opposed interventionist wars. This is not to put her down; I happen to agree with her on this. Of course war is bad, it is crude, barbaric and destructive. But in some cases it can be, arguably, necessary. War is nearly always a means to an end and not an end in itself. The issue isn't simply war vs. peace; a perfectly realized totalitarian state would be an icon of peacefulness (whereas democracy will never be fully peaceful). It is the end, the purpose, that determines the meaning of any given war. Our current wars are hegemonic in purpose and their advocates are neocons of the PNAC variety. These wars have nothing to do with self-defense or rescue of others and they're not even ideological like the Vietnam War; they're simply a means of seizing power over others and moving pieces around on the geographic chessboard. And that, of course, is what the Deep State (or maybe the current version of the Deep State) is all about. So that is why Deep State operatives like the Democratic and Republican party establishments along with the MSM, Wall Street, most transnational corporations and nearly all repositories of wealth, are absolutely opposed to any aspiring candidate who would put an end to the war effort so necessary to their hegemonic expansion. They have a well thought-out agenda, and anyone or anything that interferes with that agenda is going to be vigorously and mercilessly stamped out. But war is only one of their valued and necessary tools.

I hope I'm not coming across as preachy or, god forbid, condescending, because I don't feel that way. It's challenging and sometimes exhausting to keep my mind wrapped around and focused on this stuff well enough to put it into words. I like and respect this forum and its people and find myself agreeing with you, gulfgal, most of the time.

#5.1#5.1 I agree, based only upon my own anecdotal experience in a small southern town Peace vigil. What I found was that people are making the connection between endless war and why things are going downhill here in the US. This cut across all sectors of the political spectrum.

Further, what Tulsi has been doing is what we tried to do. And that is selling the anti regime change war platform based upon how negative war has been here at home economically.

What the Peace platform does is expose nearly everyone in Congress as a hypocrite. This is why she is the enemy of both Democrats and Republicans. Most, regardless of their political party, belong to the war party above all.

@laurel
I do not think we disagree at all. I misspoke because I inferred that she was a Peace candidate in my comment and am very much aware of the nuances in her anti regime change message. I posted a comment to that very same thing here recently. The problem is that all the wars that the US is or have been involved in since WW II have been regime change wars.

Further, I have no problem with someone serving or who has served in the military running for public office, particularly a combat veteran who has seen war close up. The fact that Tulsi has been in the National Guard for sixteen years and has done two tours in Iraq with a medical unit gives her credibility to speak out against regime change wars.

#5.1.1#5.1.1 Tulsi is not a peacenik, gulfgal. She's a major in the Army National Guard and does not oppose "war" in the abstract, but rather regime-change war, much as Trump used to say he opposed interventionist wars. This is not to put her down; I happen to agree with her on this. Of course war is bad, it is crude, barbaric and destructive. But in some cases it can be, arguably, necessary. War is nearly always a means to an end and not an end in itself. The issue isn't simply war vs. peace; a perfectly realized totalitarian state would be an icon of peacefulness (whereas democracy will never be fully peaceful). It is the end, the purpose, that determines the meaning of any given war. Our current wars are hegemonic in purpose and their advocates are neocons of the PNAC variety. These wars have nothing to do with self-defense or rescue of others and they're not even ideological like the Vietnam War; they're simply a means of seizing power over others and moving pieces around on the geographic chessboard. And that, of course, is what the Deep State (or maybe the current version of the Deep State) is all about. So that is why Deep State operatives like the Democratic and Republican party establishments along with the MSM, Wall Street, most transnational corporations and nearly all repositories of wealth, are absolutely opposed to any aspiring candidate who would put an end to the war effort so necessary to their hegemonic expansion. They have a well thought-out agenda, and anyone or anything that interferes with that agenda is going to be vigorously and mercilessly stamped out. But war is only one of their valued and necessary tools.

I hope I'm not coming across as preachy or, god forbid, condescending, because I don't feel that way. It's challenging and sometimes exhausting to keep my mind wrapped around and focused on this stuff well enough to put it into words. I like and respect this forum and its people and find myself agreeing with you, gulfgal, most of the time.

up

5 users have voted.

—

"I don't want to run the empire, I want to bring it down!" ~Dr. Cornel West

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." John F Kennedy

@gulfgal98
Ah, yes, we do see completely eye to eye on this, gulfgal. You're right, I misinterpreted your phrase assuming it implied something of a purist's outlook. I've known some peaceniks, and of course there are famous ones like Gandhi, MLK, and Jesus, all of whom are way up there and entirely admirable, but I guess I haven't reached that point yet. Maybe there's still time, dunno. I enjoyed your comments and am especially grateful for the excellent interview with Tulsi -- on CNN of all places! I've shared Joe Rogan's recent interview, but it may have been a bit long for some of my friends (one of whom had never heard of her), but this 20-minute interview would be an excellent way to turn people on to Tulsi. So ... thanks!

#5.1.1.1 I do not think we disagree at all. I misspoke because I inferred that she was a Peace candidate in my comment and am very much aware of the nuances in her anti regime change message. I posted a comment to that very same thing here recently. The problem is that all the wars that the US is or have been involved in since WW II have been regime change wars.

Further, I have no problem with someone serving or who has served in the military running for public office, particularly a combat veteran who has seen war close up. The fact that Tulsi has been in the National Guard for sixteen years and has done two tours in Iraq with a medical unit gives her credibility to speak out against regime change wars.

#5.1.1#5.1.1 Tulsi is not a peacenik, gulfgal. She's a major in the Army National Guard and does not oppose "war" in the abstract, but rather regime-change war, much as Trump used to say he opposed interventionist wars. This is not to put her down; I happen to agree with her on this. Of course war is bad, it is crude, barbaric and destructive. But in some cases it can be, arguably, necessary. War is nearly always a means to an end and not an end in itself. The issue isn't simply war vs. peace; a perfectly realized totalitarian state would be an icon of peacefulness (whereas democracy will never be fully peaceful). It is the end, the purpose, that determines the meaning of any given war. Our current wars are hegemonic in purpose and their advocates are neocons of the PNAC variety. These wars have nothing to do with self-defense or rescue of others and they're not even ideological like the Vietnam War; they're simply a means of seizing power over others and moving pieces around on the geographic chessboard. And that, of course, is what the Deep State (or maybe the current version of the Deep State) is all about. So that is why Deep State operatives like the Democratic and Republican party establishments along with the MSM, Wall Street, most transnational corporations and nearly all repositories of wealth, are absolutely opposed to any aspiring candidate who would put an end to the war effort so necessary to their hegemonic expansion. They have a well thought-out agenda, and anyone or anything that interferes with that agenda is going to be vigorously and mercilessly stamped out. But war is only one of their valued and necessary tools.

I hope I'm not coming across as preachy or, god forbid, condescending, because I don't feel that way. It's challenging and sometimes exhausting to keep my mind wrapped around and focused on this stuff well enough to put it into words. I like and respect this forum and its people and find myself agreeing with you, gulfgal, most of the time.

up

3 users have voted.

—

"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep." ~Rumi

Sorry, I'm new at this. This was intended to be a comment on Raggedy Ann's tagline
@Raggedy Ann
I assume you are quoting Steven Stills in "For what it's worth".

This is an extended version with lots of the images that those of us of a certain age saw on the TV every night. Funny how war never seems to make it onto the TV anymore except when Ken Burns sugar coats it. Of course they'd have to decide which of the many imperial wars going on at any given time to show us.
See if you can pick out the scenes from demonstrations outside the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago when Mayor Richard Daley and the Democratic establishment extinguished any chance for an end to the killing by pushing aside the anti-war candidates McCarthy and McGovern while encouraging the beating and arrest of the anti-war demonstrators.There was no CNN or MSNBC then. Real journalists like Walter Cronkite showed and told us the truth about what was happening. Bobby may have been able to lead the anti-war contingent to victory, but they killed him when he won the California primary.
I think that was the night when this suburban kid from a republican family became a left wing "radical". Like many others from my generation, I had no other choice.

who had made their bones in print journalism as reporters manned and, less frequently, womanned, the microphones. They included columnist Walter Winchell on the right and Walter Cronkite* on the left(ish). Now, we have "cast members" catapulting "news" provided to them by government, politicians, etc. and presenting the "editorial" view of the five to seven corporate conglomerates that have controlled msm for some time now.

Remember how news media from the NYT to Tim Russert, head of news at NBC got caught helping the US govt "sell" invading Iraq to the American public? Remember when news stations got caught airing "news" videotapes prepared for them and delivered to them by the Bush Administration? Funny how those news stories barely made a ripple, when they should have received massive coverage.

Anyway....

Democrats have been at this game since Andrew Jackson and Republicans since Abraham Lincoln. And unlike us hoi polloi, they have been well-funded, have all kinds of people on this full time and have institutional "memory." Their tentacles reached into msm, even Comedy Central, ffs. How can we possibly fight all that and so much more?

As for the Democratic National Convention of 1968, don't forget to credit journalists like Dan Rather and others whom I don't recognize who suffered the same kinds of physical brutality as the demonstrators. Coincidentally, I wrote about that convention in yesterday's Evening Blues. https://caucus99percent.com/comment/421043#comment-421043

Check out the last pic--a bleeding journalist interviewing a bleeding demonstrator. Courtesy of Mayor Richard J. Daley, whose sons are his political heirs as well as his genetic heirs. And both New Democrat Bill Clinton and New Democrat Barack Obama appointed them to important national positions.

*FWIW, I'm not certain that Cronkite was or remained solely a "real journalist" during his television years. I think he may have gotten seduced by establishment power brokers. Or maybe he made it as far as he did, from print journalism to the perhaps the most famous TV news anchor ever, because he was already "cooperative" when he was in print journalism. I don't know.

In any event, he hung out in the Bohemian Grove without exposing it for what it was, not a very "real journalist" thing to do. And was very tight in his free time with the Kennedys. Took him him long enough to criticize the Vietnam mess. Supported perjurer Bill Clinton throughout the impeachment, etc.

Sorry, I'm new at this. This was intended to be a comment on Raggedy Ann's tagline
@Raggedy Ann
I assume you are quoting Steven Stills in "For what it's worth".

This is an extended version with lots of the images that those of us of a certain age saw on the TV every night. Funny how war never seems to make it onto the TV anymore except when Ken Burns sugar coats it. Of course they'd have to decide which of the many imperial wars going on at any given time to show us.
See if you can pick out the scenes from demonstrations outside the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago when Mayor Richard Daley and the Democratic establishment extinguished any chance for an end to the killing by pushing aside the anti-war candidates McCarthy and McGovern while encouraging the beating and arrest of the anti-war demonstrators.There was no CNN or MSNBC then. Real journalists like Walter Cronkite showed and told us the truth about what was happening. Bobby may have been able to lead the anti-war contingent to victory, but they killed him when he won the California primary.
I think that was the night when this suburban kid from a republican family became a left wing "radical". Like many others from my generation, I had no other choice.

They did something very similar to the Green Party--tried to discredit/smear THE furthest left national political party in the nation by saying it took money from Republicans.

OMIGOSH! A political party with very little money didn't return donations from Republicans! What a shocker! Especially when Democrats cooperate with Republicans to ensure that newer political parties have to spend a ton of money, just to get ballot access, news coverage, etc.

NO doubt all the Green politicians elected to Congress and the Oval Office over and over will now rig legislation toward Republicans, just like Democrats cooperate with Republicans to rig the country for big business and the wealthiest ten percent (give or take) of individuals.

Democrats also tried to equate Bernie's accepting a donation--partly in kind, no less--from a single PAC--that of a nurse's union that favors single payer--with all the PACs that donated to Hillary. And to pretend that accepting that donation from a single PAC meant Bernie lied about taking money only from individual donors.

Meanwhile, establishment Democratic politicians and the DNC, DCCC and DSCC accept money from the worst people, companies and PACs in the nation.

Lesser of two evils? Or accomplices with Republicans, making Dems the more hypocritical wing of the single evil?

There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party … and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat.